"Obama planning to ignore the facts." New York Pos

[The Guid]

From Realclearpolitics:

Here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... facts.html
Planning to Ignore the Facts
by Rich Lowry

At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but -- despite some wobbles -- Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush's troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false. Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence," and the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." He referred to the surge derisively as "baby-sit(ting) a civil war."

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that Obama lacked the military judgment -- or political courage -- to support.

In his oped, Obama states that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All of those are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq -- beating back al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias, and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could have benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a "residual force" of American troops to take on "remnants of al-Qaida." How can he be so sure there will only be "remnants"? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely al-Qaeda is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. But Maliki, playing to his domestic politic audience, can't be taken at face value. Neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being remotely plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama's plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they've had in months. Obama's withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis -- progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq "responsibly." There's nothing responsible about his plan. According to U.S. commanders on the ground, it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he's elected he'd give the military a new mission -- to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations -- either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he's a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

There are few things here I am curious about; if violence is at its lowest since 2004, according to the BBC website, surely that means that the violence is on the same level as 2004 which was before the surge? And I think just quoting that the political benchmarks have been reached is cheeky at best.

[The Spartan]

Something I don't get seen being brought up: How are we going to pay for this? Ultimately, we can not afford to stay there regardless of the situation on the ground and must withdraw sooner or later. (preferably sooner)

It's also disingenuous to say that they have reached 15 of the 18 benchmarks since, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall hearing that they had only partially met most of those.

[Darth Wong]

Since the whole point of the much-ballyhooed "Surge" was originally to be a temporary boost in troop deployments, it's rather absurd to say it's "working" if the troops can't be pulled out without disastrous consequences, isn't it?

What they're talking about is not a "Surge". It is an "Escalation". If that's what they felt needed to be done, then that's what they should have called it from Day One, and it's certainly what they should call it now.

[Patrick Degan]

There's also the niggling little fact that the Iraqi "government" (such as it is) wants us out of there. But then, that's among the things Mr. Lowery's determined to ignore, I suppose.

[Solauren]

Which of the benchmarks have been meet? Let me guess, the ones that the Iraqi government can't survive on without the US, right?

All bluster, no facts.

Typical Republican type mud-slinging

[Chris OFarrell]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main reason the fighting in Iraq has died down because most of the major factions have done their ethnic cleansing now and are just waiting for the next round to start? Because the Sunni's who were such a BIG threat in the first few years, have been hit so hard, they are now working with the US for their protection from the Shites and/or accepting money from the US to not fight the US and Iraqi troops?

I mean the whole point of the surge was to provide a temporary increase in manpower -both by increasing the troop numbers and redeploying boots on the ground in areas of heavy fighting- to let the Iraqi government, army and other such institutions get their act together and start imposing order themselves. Has ANY progress in that area been made?

Of course McCain keeps gloating saying the surge is working! Rar! But has it really worked? Or is the bugs bunny equivalent of holding your finger in the crack in the dam to stop it from breaking apart that DOES stop the water, but if you try to leave...

[Anguirus]

I am really flummoxed by the politicization of operational strategy. If the surge led to the recent relative success in Iraq, then great, fantastic. However, what relevance is it to be "formerly against the surge"? Nobody knew it was going to be successful at all. And the troop surge shouldn't logically have any relevance on whether or not to stay long-term, so there is no reason that being "pro-surge" should have any connection with being "pro-stay in Iraq fucking forever."

In fact, if the surge digs us even deeper into Iraqi affairs, shouldn't it be considered a failure? Why do we want to still be there?

And what does McCain have to say about the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan that we no longer have the troops to effectively combat? Holding Iraq together while Afghanistan descends into chaos should be no one's definition of success.

[Durandal]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main reason the fighting in Iraq has died down because most of the major factions have done their ethnic cleansing now and are just waiting for the next round to start?

Well that and we're now paying them to not kill each other.

[Master of Ossus]

Since the whole point of the much-ballyhooed "Surge" was originally to be a temporary boost in troop deployments, it's rather absurd to say it's "working" if the troops can't be pulled out without disastrous consequences, isn't it?

What they're talking about is not a "Surge". It is an "Escalation". If that's what they felt needed to be done, then that's what they should have called it from Day One, and it's certainly what they should call it now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they pulled out virtually all of the "Surge" troops, already? Aren't we basically back down to where we were, before?

Also, I do kind of have a problem with people who want to get out of Iraq no matter what is going on--the correct metric should always be whether staying in Iraq will be less costly to us and less damaging than pulling out. Unless that condition is met, we ought to stay. Admittedly, it's a pretty tall order to say that leaving people in is LESS costly than whatever else could happen, but I think it could be at least theoretically possible, depending on the circumstances.

[Stormbringer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they pulled out virtually all of the "Surge" troops, already? Aren't we basically back down to where we were, before?

That's not the case. They withdrew several before deciding to cancel the withdrawals of troops. At the point at which the withdrawals were stopped a lot more troops were supposed to be going home soon, and that was played up a lot, but the actual numbers that went home were fairly low. The US deployments are down from the high point of the surge but they've effectively become the fixed troop levels.

Also, I do kind of have a problem with people who want to get out of Iraq no matter what is going on--the correct metric should always be whether staying in Iraq will be less costly to us and less damaging than pulling out.

I'd agree with you on that. I would add that one thing we need to be considering is whether staying actually enables progress or simply maintains a bloody, expensive status quo. I was for the war but I can't say as I see much hope of any real progress. Even if things get worse after we leave, and they probably will, we have to consider whether staying really affects the long term situation.

[Patrick Degan]

Also, I do kind of have a problem with people who want to get out of Iraq no matter what is going on--the correct metric should always be whether staying in Iraq will be less costly to us and less damaging than pulling out. Unless that condition is met, we ought to stay. Admittedly, it's a pretty tall order to say that leaving people in is LESS costly than whatever else could happen, but I think it could be at least theoretically possible, depending on the circumstances.

The plain fact is that remaining in Iraq indefinitely is putting a strain on U.S. military capability which is steadily becoming unsustainable and in addition is inflicting further damage on U.S. credibility and diplomatic leverage.

The object of the exercise was always, beyond whatever propaganda has been spun to the contrary, to ensure the installation of a stable American client regime which would make possible a permanent base for control of the Persian Gulf region. This of course assumes that we can inure the Iraqi people to accept us on their soil forever, and that's not going to happen. They want us out, and even the present puppet government which pretends to rule from the Green Zone is getting fractious with us on this issue.

Meanwhile, our continuing occupation remains a potent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and every other half-baked terrorist operation in the region. And it is a mere question of time before the bribe money we're paying out to the various factions to not fight starts either running out or becomes insufficient to keep them bought. The present situation is not stable and in the end not sustainable.

[Guardsman Bass]

Also, I do kind of have a problem with people who want to get out of Iraq no matter what is going on--the correct metric should always be whether staying in Iraq will be less costly to us and less damaging than pulling out. Unless that condition is met, we ought to stay. Admittedly, it's a pretty tall order to say that leaving people in is LESS costly than whatever else could happen, but I think it could be at least theoretically possible, depending on the circumstances.

Meanwhile, our continuing occupation remains a potent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and every other half-baked terrorist operation in the region. And it is a mere question of time before the bribe money we're paying out to the various factions to not fight starts either running out or becomes insufficient to keep them bought. The present situation is not stable and in the end not sustainable.

True, but we don't know how long that time is - potentially we could keep bribing them for decades, assuming that the largely Shi'ite government doesn't work out an arrangement with them. It's not like it's a large percentage of the current amount of money we're burning in there.

[Sea Skimmer]

Since the whole point of the much-ballyhooed "Surge" was originally to be a temporary boost in troop deployments, it's rather absurd to say it's "working" if the troops can't be pulled out without disastrous consequences, isn't it?

It is temporary, and the number is already going back down. But withdrawing 40,000 men is different then pulling out 100,000 or more. Progress has been made, you have to secure progress and it would be just insane to try to make a premature large scale withdrawal now. The Iraqi Army has made vast improvements but by its own schedule it cannot be ready for fully independent operations until the end of 2009 because none of its artillery regiments have formed yet, though some divisions are now already forming engineering regiments and logistics battalions . Until then a large scale US presence is essential, but some level of disengagement may be possible within that timeframe.

As it is, in the first fifteen days of this month, insurgent attacks have killed just three American troops. To this can be added two bodies found of men killed in 2007, and two men killed in non combat accidents. Even if the rate picks up in the second half of the month has the making of what could be the lowest month for US deaths in the entire war. This is coming after nine months of below average US losses. Insurgent attacks tend to come in cycles so we’ll have to wait and see, but the old claim that progress is impossible has clearly been beaten.

[cosmicalstorm]

Will they be able to continue to finance the war when or if the current economic crisis reaches its crescendo?

[Metatwaddle]

This is the fucking New York Post. Why is anyone taking this seriously?

[Master of Ossus]

Also, I do kind of have a problem with people who want to get out of Iraq no matter what is going on--the correct metric should always be whether staying in Iraq will be less costly to us and less damaging than pulling out. [snip]

The plain fact is that remaining in Iraq indefinitely is putting a strain on U.S. military capability which is steadily becoming unsustainable and in addition is inflicting further damage on U.S. credibility and diplomatic leverage.
[snip]
Meanwhile, our continuing occupation remains a potent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and every other half-baked terrorist operation in the region. And it is a mere question of time before the bribe money we're paying out to the various factions to not fight starts either running out or becomes insufficient to keep them bought. The present situation is not stable and in the end not sustainable.

I mean, it's fair enough to say, "Yeah, but we're way past the point at which staying is more costly than getting out." I just have a problem with the mentality that if it was a mistake to start something, that automatically means you should stop as soon as possible.

[xerex]

I mean, it's fair enough to say, "Yeah, but we're way past the point at which staying is more costly than getting out." I just have a problem with the mentality that if it was a mistake to start something, that automatically means you should stop as soon as possible.

I'd say the situation is one where there is no Success Option.

at present keeping 150,000 troops is the best option vis a vis US policy- maintiaing a precense in the ME and ensuring a reasonably friendly/timid Iraqi govt.

however this is not and cannot be a Permenent Solution.

the unfortunate fact that the Right refuses to accept is that any democratic govt in Iraq must necessarily be one that leans towards Iran. The extent varies depending on who's in charge but no way the US gets to use the iraqi Shia as a bulwark agianst the iranian shia.

[xerex]

also the title is wrong

it should be Obama planning to ignore Rich Lowry's OPINION.